The UK's chief fire and rescue adviser says social media has not replaced traditional news in providing emergency information, suggesting it may even need to be shut down in some instances.

Sir Ken Knight, London's fire commissioner during the 2005 bombings, says emerging and traditional communication tools should be used together to distribute information quickly and accurately.

But he says the recent London riots, the worst in England for decades, are a reminder that social media can also be used for ill, helping rioters to coordinate times and locations.

"In extreme circumstances there might have to be a consideration of how much that social media, in very defined times and locations, might need to be curtailed," he said.

"But for me, it wouldn't be a widely proposed solution."

More than 2,000 people in London alone have been arrested over the riots, which began August 6 in Tottenham before spreading across the capital and other cities, leaving five dead.

The AFAC (Australasia Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council) conference in Sydney this week is discussing the role of social media, with one session suggesting it has supplanted the role of the press release during crises.

But Sir Ken says both channels are important.

"I think social media is beginning to play a greater and greater part, particularly with younger people but not solely younger, but I think we should not forget some of the traditional media is still very important indeed," he said.

Moving the masses

Sir Ken says social media played only a small part in the London bombings, partly because the three of the four bombings were on the London Underground rail system, where mobiles could not be used at the time.

But he notes technology is improving and social media is now far more prevalent.

"The level of communication from overground to underground was challenging even for the rescuers, let alone for people to message in social media terms," he said.

"I think that will change very quickly and is already changing, and we saw very recently in the civil disturbances in the UK how social media played a significant part - people mobilising each other and speaking to each other in very real time."

Sir Ken says if an event like those bombings was to occur now, social media would play a vastly greater role.

"I think there would be a huge amount of unsolicited media ... the real-time experiences of people caught up and maybe loved ones searching for those caught up," he said.

He says the emergency officials would also harness social media to tell people how to respond: whether they should travel, whether they should stay in their offices, how communications will be affected.

Sir Ken says authorities can also use social media to monitor events in real time, even allowing them to pre-empt emergencies, as was the case during the riots.

He notes that social media actually helped keep news reports timely during the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi earlier this year.

"It was very effective. We got a lot of feedback from people who either weren't able to access traditional media due to their electricity being out or them not being in a house ... but they were still able to keep in touch with the latest information by accessing it on their smartphone," he said.

Mr Kelly cites the example of the #mythbuster Twitter hashtag which was used to debunk flood and cyclone rumours that were circulating within communities.

He also notes that Queensland Police's Facebook followers cut across demographics, with the largest aged 25-34 (29.5 per cent) followed by 18-24 (22.9 per cent) and 35-44 (21.2 per cent).

Comments (7)

Marko:

29 Aug 2011 4:07:45pm

Sir Ken obviously would like to keep the children in their box. I would remind him that the 'social media' is not to blame for the recent civil unrest, the english have been famous for their riot and tumult for centuries. Israel and china are at least two countries that regularly shut down access to social media to control dissent within their borders. One of these is an apartheid regime, the other is a one party state. Perhaps not good models for the keepers of the home of modern democractic governance?

Dee-Boat-Ee:

29 Aug 2011 4:56:44pm

Governance by Twitter is not a good model either. As bad as the major parties are, Australia risked losing it's export partners when ruled by Facebook. England might have been having riots for centuries, but witth the help of technology you can make an ill-conceived mob far more effective.

jansant:

29 Aug 2011 6:37:13pm

"Australia risked losing it's export partners when ruled by Facebook"Mark Zuckerberg would be thrilled to learn he ruled Australia, but at the same time would be kicking himself for the lost opportunity that passed unnoticed by him. lmao

Matt:

29 Aug 2011 4:47:00pm

I think what happened in London is disgusting. But allowing governments to censor and shut off social media is no different to them closing off the telephone lines or censoring all newspapers. Its almost akin to arresting political opponenets.

No one should tolerate or allow govt to interfere with forms of media under any circumstance. Where do you draw the line once a corrupt or dangerous govt starts shutting down communications or censoring communications to silence the people. If its the peoples will, then perhaps the govt has a problem that needs fixing.

Letting govts interfere with social media is dangerous for democracey.

Rob:

29 Aug 2011 5:28:39pm

Matt,

Where do you draw the line at "the government must never interfere in the media"? Would you really support, say, a lack of any legal recourse if someone were to deface a memorial page with child porn, or write a front-page article accusing you of being an adulterer? In Australia, we have racial vilification laws which have successfully, and frequently, been used to prosecute (and in some cases imprison) people whose views the government found repugnant. So far, those prosecutions have been confined to Holocaust denial and child abuse advocacy, but the sedition elements of our anti-terror laws leave the door open to a lot more than that.

Even in the USA, where Free Speech is practically a religion, their Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that while the government cannot control what you say, it is within their democratic power to legislate where, when, and how you say it. Thus you may protest about the Iraq war, but not at the funerals of soldiers; You may express your opinion that your race is superior to another, but not using a carriage service or public broadcast medium; You may shout at the top of your voice "I HAVE A BOMB!", but not at an airport.

Where Are Your Epapers:

29 Aug 2011 5:20:25pm

The days of blindly trusting any government are long past. And, as the recent media inquiry in Sir Ken's own country has shown, any media organization! Yes, there's a lot of noise mixed in with the signal in the various social media streams. And yes, there are legitimate concerns over matters relating to privacy and users as products. However, there are similar concerns with old-style media too.

The big difference is the wider and broader access social media offers everyone to engage and share with their communities, and the more representative picture of that community such tools allow us to perceive. To swallow anything said on Facebook, Twitter or what have you as Completely True because that's its source would be pretty irregular. Most of us don't do that with the other sources - why should Sir Ken think this would be different with social media? And where malicious identity spoofing or crime does occur, how is this any different to a bank quickly stepping in off their own bat to rectify the service, as distinct from what sounds like a governmental edict? Voluntary collaboration and assistance is one thing, but secret lists, thought crimes and an absence of due process is quite another. The sound bite offered isn't entirely encouraging and comes across a lot more like e-curfews and profiling, than anything reasonable.

Our elected representative governments are expected to behave decently and lawfully, even in a crisis, as the mere voters are. Perhaps Sir Ken has plans in place to preserve democracy in the UK by shutting down all media - even the BBC - in the event of unspecified threats to liberty and reliable information? Or do the diversification of social media pose a concern that when directed, the relevant organizations may not be relied upon to do as they are told? I should rather not like to consider the implications of his concerns.

jansant:

29 Aug 2011 6:30:16pm

"unsolicited media"...huh?A case of an authority figure asserting some social media contributions are more worthy than others, by way of his view from within his own prism.You pick up a brochure from a sales desk. Is that unsolicited? No. Just the same as you don't read a social media comment/contribution/post of no interest to you.The subtext to his "unsolicited media" comment is that social media should be controlled in order to give authorities greater control.